[TEPaul]

Phil:

Taking most of your numbered questions sort of as a whole----eg what plans or drawings were they looking at and why was it difficult to read them and necessary to bring in Francis (by Francis' own statement "add him to the committee")?

First of all Richard, Francis was the local Philadelphia manager of A.G. Fuller Company, a national building construction company. Francis was a member of Merion but he was an engineer and surveyor and obviously his day job as such required him to work with things like topographical survey maps of property all the time, so he was completely familiar with topo contour maps and such and obviously used them in his professional capacity to make measurements and drawings on with measurements taken in the field.

Most people who aren't in a business that uses topographical contour maps just aren't able to understand topo contour maps very well at first (I'll be glad to add later an interesting remark about that from George Crump) as the curvilinear lines representing the flow of contours (elevations) of a property's ground are fairly hard to relate to from a topographical contour map to the property you are actually looking at.

It takes a certain amount of getting used to. I know because I spent about 700 hours over a couple of years trying to do this myself with that so-called Ardrossan project, and a couple of other properties which was the proposed move of my own golf club, Gulph Mills. It taught me a whole lot and it is why I often say most of the people on here interested in architecture who have never tried to do something like this need to really try it and get out in the field for a couple of weeks at least before they can begin to understand what really does go on out there trying to route a golf course and design holes on both the ground and on and using topographical contour maps in the process.

For Richard Francis it wasn't hard as that was part of his profession anyway. Engineers like Francis also do drawings, read drawings, measure land and topographical drawings (contour survey maps) to match the two together.

The fact is there was no routing and hole design plans done for Merion East before the Wilson Committee was appointed in the beginning of 1911. Everything from Merion itself makes that patently clear now. Hugh I. Wilson himself wrote when the committee was formed (in the beginning of 1911), and so what are we supposed to do now, listen to Moriarty tell US that Hugh Wilson must have been mistaken or engaging in hyperbole TOO??  When is that nonensenical automatic response from him ever going to end?? 

Also, this fallacious THEORY that Moriarty came up with that the Wilson Committee was nothing more than a committee appointed to just BUILD someone else's routing and hole design plan for Merion East is just totally fallacious----totally. They were charged with routing and designing the hole and building it about beginning about three to four months later. That too is contained in their reports and board meeting minutes and it's insane to continue to listen to someone constantly say ALL of them and ALL of that is hyperbole or some mistake. It just isn't! It all represents what they did from June 1910 until July 1911 when they accepted a deed from Lloyd!

Macdonald/Whigam couldn't possibly have done this for them because They only at Ardmore for a single day in June 1910 just to look at the land and would not return again for ten months for another single day Even Macdonald said in his only letter on June 29, 1910 to Lloyd that he couldn't tell them much more without a contour map of the property. Barker's own explanation of what he did, not for MCC but for HDC's Connell (the real estate developer) was a rough sketch he made of the property itself (obviously he hadn't even been given something to do a stick routing on) on which he just penciled in a rough stick routing. Anybody can read something like that because all it is is points and lines----no actual architectural hole concepts.

Also from Wilson's first letter to Russell Oakley on Feb. 1, 1911 he says that Macdonald mentioned that they (MCC) should get in touch with the US Dept of Agriculture and in that Feb. 1, 1911 letter Wilson also said he was doing that immediately and he was enclosing their topographical contour map (which from the sound of it he's just gotten). It seems pretty clear they had just gotten them shortly after the committee had been appointed in the beginning of 1911 and they were about to get to work laying out many different courses on those topo survey maps. On April 19, 1911 they would attach one of those plans to a board report and get approval to build it.

So what they needed Francis for (according to Francis) was to help them read those topo countour maps; they were actually topographical blueprints of the boundaries of 117 acres and the contours of that land and not drawings with golf holes drawn on them. That would come later in Feb and March and April 1911.

There were no architectural drawings of Merion East before that. Nothing like that was ever mentioned at any time in any record of any committee report or board meeting minutes before that. The first mention of it was Wilson's report to the board meeting of April 19, 1911.

The only person who EVER suggested such a thing in an entire century is David Moriarty in this really inaccurate and fallacious essay. I hope you can understand that and see it for what it is as we all do and have for a year.

I hope you can appreciate this Phil, because it really is the recorded timeline history of Merion itself, and within less than the last year a good deal of documentary material was found at MCC where apparently it had not been seen in almost a century that completely supports this timeline that we are explaining here and that those men who were involved back then said later about the way the whole thing was done.

Arguing with Moriarty to try to get him to acknowledge ANY of this and admit it has just become a true waste of time as he just dismisses and ignores whatever he feels doesn't support his essay. Almost NOTHING from Merion supports much of anything in his essay. Haven't you noticed he dismisses and ignores and rationalizes away everything we offer that supports this recorded history of Merion at that time?

Matter of fact, at this point he doesn't even try to discuss any of it, all he does now on just about every post is say I'm wrong about what I say without even ATTEMPTING to explain WHY he thinks I'm wrong. It's just the final wailings of a really desperate essayist, in my opinion. The gig is up and I think he's actually known that for sometime now so the only thing he has left is to constantly attack the messengers and not even attempt to deal with what they are actually saying about Merion's history!

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Wjile at first glance your response that they needed Francis for his ability to read and understand topographical drawings that they already had, if that was the case, why would they need him to DRAW them? This was also one of the main reasons he was asked to serve with this committee. Since they had topographical drawings already for the property why would they need new ones?

My original point on this is not that I now believe that CBM designed Merion, nor is it that I am of the opinion that he had little to do with the design process. The fact is that I simply don't know and have been following the dabte with great interest.

That is why what Francis wrote stood out to me. It doesn't appear, at least to me at this point, that it was simply for his understanding of topographical drawings that he was asked to be part of the Committee. It could well be that he did the actual drawing of most or all of the working drawings for the final routing and individual holes, and as such, this goes a LONG way toward proving that Wilson and the Committee did indeed do both.

BUT, there were certainly drawings of some sort in place before he joined them. Were they JUST the topographical drawinsg? Did they include BASIC hole designs and course routings? I think this is something that also needs looking into... The answer may end up being one of not ever knowing, but someone should consider contacting his heirs and family to see if there may be Merion drawings &/or documents in his surviving papers...

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Wjile at first glance your response that they needed Francis for his ability to read and understand topographical drawings that they already had, if that was the case, why would they need him to DRAW them? This was also one of the main reasons he was asked to serve with this committee. Since they had topographical drawings already for the property why would they need new ones?"




No, Phil, they didn't need him to draw NEW topo contour maps, they obviously felt he was better at DRAWING golf holes ON THOSE topo contour maps that they had JUST gotten than they were. That's what one generally does when designing courses using topographical contour maps----eg they draw the holes on THOSE topographical contour maps! Haven't you ever seen the famous "blue/red" line topo contour map of Pine Valley?? It's got the holes drawn on it that includes both Crump's and Colt's hand that includes a series of most interesting chances here and there. Crump is red and Colt is blue, but the underlying topo contour map was produced by a local surveyor of all the intricate contour lines of the entire property.

[Bradley Anderson]

Phil:

Taking most of your numbered question sort of as a whole----eg what plans or drawings were they looking at and why was it difficult to read then and necessary to bring in Francis (by Francis' own statement "add him to the committee")?

First of all Richard Francis was the local Philadelphia manager of A.G. Fuller Company, a national building construction company. Francis was a member of Merion but he was an engineer and surveyor and obviously his day job as such required him to work with things like topographical survey maps of property all the time, so he was completely familiar with contour maps and such and obviously used them in his professional capacity to make measurements and drawings on with measurements in the field.

Most people who aren't in a business that uses topographical contour maps just aren't able to understand them very well at first as the curvilinear lines representing the contours a a property are fairly hard to relate from a topographical contour map to the property you are actually looking at.

It takes a certain amount of getting used to. I know because I spent about 700 hours over a couple of years trying to do this myself with that so-called Ardrossan project which was the proposed move of my own golf club, Gulph Mills. It taught me a whole lot and it is why I often say most of the people on here interested in architecture who have never tried to do something like this need to really try it before they can truly understand what really does go on out there trying to route a golf course and design holes on both the ground and on topographical contour maps.

For Richard Francis it wasn't hard as that was part of his profession anyway. Engineers like Francis also do drawings, read drawings, measure land and drawings to match them together.

The fact is there was no routing and hole design plans done for Merion East before the Wilson Committee was appointed in the beginning of 1911. Hugh I. Wilson himself wrote when the committee was formed.

Macdonald/Whigam couldn't possibly have done this for them because he was only at Ardmore for a single day just to look at the land and even he said he couldn't tell them much more without a contour map of the property. Barker's own explanation of what he did not for MCC but for HDC's Connell (the real estate developer) was a rough sketch he made of the property itself on which he just penciled in a rough stick routing. Anybody can read something like that because all it is is points and lines----no actual architectural hole concepts.

Also from Wilson's first letter to Russell Oakley on Feb. 1, 1911 he says that Macdonald mentioned that they (MCC) should get in touch with the US Dept of Agriculture and in that letter he also said he was doing that immediately as he was enclosing their topographical contour map. It seems pretty clear they had just gotten them shortly after the committee had been appointed and they were about to get to work laying out many different courses on those topo survey maps.

So what they need Francis for was to help them read those topo countour maps; they were actually topographical blueprints of the boundaries of 117 acres and the contours of that land and not drawings with golf holes drawn on them. That would come later in Feb and March.

There were no architectural drawings of Merion East before that. Nothing like that was ever mentioned at any time in any record of any committee report or board meeting minutes before that. The first mention of it was Wilson's report to the board meeting of April 19, 1911.

The only person who EVER suggested such a thing in an entire century is David Moriarty in this really inaccurate and fallacious essay of his.

I hope you can appreciate this Phil, because it really is the recorded timeline history of Merion itself, and within less than the last year a good deal of documentary material was found at MCC where apparently it had not been seen in almost a century that completely supports this timeline that those men who were involved back then said later about the way the whole thing was done.

Arguing with Moriarty to try to get him to acknowledge this and admit it has just become a true waste of time as he just dismisses and ignores what he feels doesn't support his essay. Haven't you noticed he dismisses and ignores and rationalizes away everything we offer that supports this recorded history of Merion at that time.

Tom,

Let me summarize what you just said: a group of amateurs, who were earnest about building a great American golf course, at a time when there was only one other great American golf course up in Massachusetts, put together a team of people who could help them to best achieve their goal. MacDonald was certainly a part of this team. Leeds might have been a better guy to go to, but he was probably on a boat somewhere in the ocean.

I did the grow-in of a golf course many years ago and when we opened it we had a big party for everyone who was on the team. There were over a 100 people at the party. We should have had that party before we began the project, and maybe it would have went smoother.   There was a pond that was dug that I came up with in the field to solve a drainage problem. Maybe I should have taken the design credit for that hole? Our irrigation guy had input into the placement of a green that sat on an odd shelf. Even my assistant had input in our pre-construction meetings.

One time I was out flagging heads with the irrigation guy and I said to him: do you realize that when the architect's associate comes in here tomorrow to paint the seeding perimeter of this fairway, he will be mindful of how we have flagged the watering of this hole? He laughed about it and we went about our business. I was just excited with the awareness that we were having our own small influence on how that hole evolved.

The point is, there are so many people involved in these projects that you can barely unravel historical inconsistencies with shit that happened 15 years ago. How can anyone undo a legend that is almost 100 years old? I would wager that the greenkeeper at Merion might have made some significant contributions that no one will ever know of.

The thing is, a lot of people have to get involved in these projects in order for them to succeed. It is not too difficult for me to think that MacDonald's ego may have been big enough to think that he had more input in that project than he deserved.

If Leeds hadn't been such a dude, he might have been down there for a day or two, and we would all be arguing over his credits or lack thereof.

[TEPaul]

"That is why what Francis wrote stood out to me. It doesn't appear, at least to me at this point, that it was simply for his understanding of topographical drawings that he was asked to be part of the Committee. It could well be that he did the actual drawing of most or all of the working drawings for the final routing and individual holes, and as such, this goes a LONG way toward proving that Wilson and the Committee did indeed do both."



Phil, I think you are beginning to see what we've been saying on here for over a year now since this essay came out!



"BUT, there were certainly drawings of some sort in place before he joined them. Were they JUST the topographical drawinsg?"



Yes! That is what they were and Wilson says so. He also explains in his report that they did many different courses and plans in the winter and spring of 1911. Obviously those topo contours maps of the boundaries and contour line (elevation) flows of the property are what they did their courses and plans and designs on while working in the field. That's what people who route courses and design holes on courses do at first, and that is generally what they present to a board for consideration and approval. That's exactly what I did with that Ardrossan project. It was a pretty intense culmination of about two years of really interesting work that included a number of people such as Coore and even Gil Hanse!


"Did they include BASIC hole designs and course routings? I think this is something that also needs looking into... The answer may end up being one of not ever knowing, but someone should consider contacting his heirs and family to see if there may be Merion drawings &/or documents in his surviving papers..."




Phil, we've been saying that for years now and we've also said for years now that we have never found one of them including the one that it was mentioned in the board meeting minutes was attached to the report to that April 19, 1911 board meeting asking for approval of THAT PLAN AND asking for approval of a land swap for land ALREADY PURCHASED for land adjoining AND approval for the purchase of three more acres for $7,500 that was obviously incorporated in that plan presented to that board meeting.

Phil, Wayne and I have talked to every member of every family of those men involved that we could find for close to 5-6 years now! We're still doing it. At this moment Wayne is even talking to the US Dept of Agriculture and we've contacted a few surveyor historians too.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

As I explain in a parallel thread,  they already had a blueprint of the course when Wilson was appointed.  Either that or they were out there in the snow in January 1911 drawing one up.  


_______________________________

TEPaul,

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am at all interested in what you have to say, or that I am conversing with you at all.  As I stated above, you are obviously not capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation, I am done with your pathetic garbage.

You like ultimatums, so here is one for you.   If you want to discuss this stuff with me you need to:

1.  Rescind and make amends for your repugnant and defamatory accusations you maliciously leveled at me recently.
2.  Successfully seek treatment for whatever it is that causes you to behave like you do, and prove you are capable of behaving civilly and controlling yourself.  
3.  Back up your many claims (past and present) that you have leveled at me and my essay with VERIFIABLE FACTS.

I have no idea why Ran has decided to allow a low-life creep like you to continue to post on his website after all your abhorrent behavior.  You are not only ruining the site, you have become a huge liability that threatens the very existence of the entire endeavor.   Do Ran and yourself a favor and get some help before you maliciously defame someone who might not be as understanding as I have been so far.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am at all interested in what you have to say, or that I am conversing with you at all.   As I stated above, you are obviously not capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation, I am done with your pathetic garbage."


David Moriarty:

I'm under no mistaken impressions. I couldn't possibly care less what YOU think of what I say on here and as far as you conversing with me that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever as all you've been able to do for close to a year now is just deny anything and everything that is factual from Merion itself in some desperate campaign to preserve some modicum of credibility for your essay in someone's mind somewhere.

My only interest is to prove to others on here that you have been doing just that and that your essay is as fallacioius as I've always known it is, and at this point I feel I have just about succeeded with everyone.

I just knew that the true facts and timeline from Merion itself would do that to you ad your essay, at some point, and now it has. That factual timeline that has been most beneficially added to after your essay came out by some wonderfully revealing old material never seen before from Wayne is something like a noose tightening around your neck and your essay's. I think it should be and is a great lesson to all of us on here in how one should should go about doing an essay on the architectural history of a golf course and certainly one as great as Hugh Wilson and Committee's Merion East is, and HOW one should NEVER go about doing one as you did with "The Missing Faces of Merion." From beginning until to date it has all been totally and tragically misconceived and misconstrued by you.

That has always been my intention to point out on here. I hoped to be able to do it via a civil discussion with you on here but all along the way you have always precluded that by ignoring and dismissing everything that we presented we knew from Merion and you have continued to try to find any conceivable way possible to rationalize away the power of the facts from Merion and the truth. At this point, I'm sorry to say you are now just about flat out of any other ways to respond to this particular subject. It's over and I know you know that. It's too bad you're such a poor loser.

All you've been doing lately is railing against the messengers, and I think coming from you that is completely understandable as obviously that is all there is left for you to do, at this point.

So conversing with you at this point is meaningless and it pretty much has been for a year now anyway.

But at this point I think you should be asked a number of questions, and I think you should definitely answer them so others can see how you tried to manipulate Merion's architectural history in your attempt to come up with a preconceived conclusion about it.

[DMoriarty]

To the rest of you:

I apologize for the abruptness of my post above, but I will no longer tolerate TEPaul, for obvious reasons.

I'd be glad to continue to discuss these issues with anyone who is willing to be civil and back up their analysis with facts. 

Meanwhile, if anyone can point me toward any time-line or coherent and cohesive piece by anyone refuting my essay, please direct me to it.   I have seen such promised many, many times but as far as I know none has ever been forthcoming. 

Thanks.

DM

[DMoriarty]

To expand on my comment to Phillip above.

I have reviewed the Wilson - Oakley Agronomy letters through the construction and seeding the course, and briefly listed some of my thoughts on the "My Attempt at a Timeline" thread.  Among other things, the letters provide supporting evidence that:

1.  Merion already had a blueprint when Wilson was just getting started on the project.

2.  Wilson and CBM were communicating (probably by letter) from the time Wilson first started working on the project until at least after the M&W determined the final routing and Merion's board approved it.

This is of course another example of where TEPaul and Wayne have misled us for years.   They claim they read the letters years ago, yet one cannot read the letters and not know that CBM was very much involved in what was going on at Merion.  Either they are so married to the legend that they cannot read anything with any semblance of objectivity, or they have been extremely dishonest with us all. 

Tom MacWood gathered the documents but I doubt he plans on hoarding them like TEPaul and Wayne have.  I just need to figure out an efficient way to make them available to anyone interested.

[Bradley Anderson]

To the rest of you:

I apologize for the abruptness of my post above, but I will no longer tolerate TEPaul, for obvious reasons.

I'd be glad to continue to discuss these issues with anyone who is willing to be civil and back up their analysis with facts. 

Meanwhile, if anyone can point me toward any time-line or coherent and cohesive piece by anyone refuting my essay, please direct me to it.   I have seen such promised many, many times but as far as I know none has ever been forthcoming. 

Thanks.

DM

David,

Unless I am greatly mistaken, all the prolific golf writers of the era attributed the work of Merion to Wilson and his Committee. And no one in that time was rude in omitting MacDonalds advisory role in the process. His son-in-law's account of the work is contrary to the other accounts, I will grant you that, but it is the minority report, and it was stated at a time of grief and filial affection. Other than that, your theory appears to be based on conjecture.  

I said this at the beginning and I will say it again: the responses that have been aimed at your theory are exactly the kind of response that we should expect when poor scholarism is aimed at one of our most treasured American golf legends.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Regarding your post #130, believe me I'm not leveling anything against you personally even though you seem to keep thinking that and saying that.

ALL ANY OF THIS on here is about in my mind is that essay you wrote that was put on here. I think it is the worst kind of thing I've ever seen and I see no reason whatsoever why it should not be thoroughly critiqued and even roundly criticized if need be and I've done that by offering what I feel material I have from Merion says that counterpoints it.

None of what I've said has anything to do with you personally, it's only about what I know of the events, reports, letters, correspondences, meeting minutes and the Merion timeline actually and factually says and it's only about that truly fallacious essay of yours about a particular point of Merion's architectural history.

You're the one who wrote it and you're the one who asked that it be put on here. What did you expect, that people who really know that subject would just coddle you along and take years of their own time to teach you what they know that you didn't as you continue to ignore, dismiss and rationalize the truth they offer to you?

Even you should have known that wasn't going to happen but it sure looks from the way you've been reacting and responding lately that apparently you didn't know that was going to happen. Hopefully next time you will. All this stuff is probably a learning experience of one type of another. As for your recent refusal to converse with me, who could say that's not understandable too? I'm the only one who really can question what you've done here and what your essay really says and of course you know you have no answers for that so refusing to converse at all is obviously the next and easiest way out for you and what you call your credibility and reputation.

I know I sure learned a lot in the last year or so about additional details of Merion's history of this time but other than that 1912 trip of Wilson's abroad not a bit of it came from you. As it almost always has most all of it came from material uncovered by Wayne Morrison within the last year; wonderful old material at MCC that has probably not been seen in a century. We explained to you in detail what it says and means but obviously you don't want to hear it or acknowledge it, you seem to just want to ignore it, dismiss it or rationalize it away as the ramblings of those who were there who all were either mistaken or engaging in hyperbole. 

That's too bad because even you could've learned the accurate history of Merion which you once said was your primary interest and intention.

[Bradley Anderson]

David,

Let me add to what Tom just wrote above. If you could contribute your knowledge of architecture to this site without filtering it all through this essay you wrote, we would all benefit from your vast knowledge of the subject. You really know this subject way better than a lot of us on here.

But you seem so combative.

[TEPaul]

Tomorrow I'd be glad to do a comprehensive timeline of Merion particularly as it relates to Macdonald. One of the benefits of doing a timeline of Macdonald's involvement with Merion is by his own admission (his letter and nothing else from him on Merion) or perhaps I should say his ommission; it really only involves 4 events, or 5 at the very most over a period of a year and that makes it fairly simple to do and to understand. His own letter should be spread before this thread again so all could consider it and what it means as far as his involvement is concerned.

That 4 or 5 at the most events, is all there is from him and anything else is nothing more than real speculation that cannot be backed up by a single bit of concrete evidence. Or if it can be no one has produced it. God knows David Moriarty can't and when he is asked to he conveniently avoids the question and the subject.

But I can provide everything there is on those 4-5 events.

Of course this subject of Francis' land swap, when it happened and how, is far more complicated but as anyone who is even capable of following these Merion threads can tell by now there is almost nothing to do with C.B. Macdonald in that Francis land swap idea or fix.

[TEPaul]

"I have reviewed the Wilson - Oakley Agronomy letters through the construction and seeding the course, and briefly listed some of my thoughts on the "My Attempt at a Timeline" thread.  Among other things, the letters provide supporting evidence that:

1.  Merion already had a blueprint when Wilson was just getting started on the project.

2.  Wilson and CBM were communicating (probably by letter) from the time Wilson first started working on the project until at least after the M&W determined the final routing and Merion's board approved it.

This is of course another example of where TEPaul and Wayne have misled us for years.   They claim they read the letters years ago, yet one cannot read the letters and not know that CBM was very much involved in what was going on at Merion.  Either they are so married to the legend that they cannot read anything with any semblance of objectivity, or they have been extremely dishonest with us all. 






David Moriarty;

If you are going to make the claims you just did in #1 and #2 then you should be able to back them up. Let's see where that evidence came from in any of those 14 years of Hugh's so-called "Agronomy letters." I've read all app. 2000 of them, and very carefully a number of times including those from Alan Wilson very carefully and I see nothing in them that supports what you said in #1 and #2. So show us where it is in those letters if you are going to make those claims, or are you going to go about this like you did in your essay and just say you BELIEVE things like that with no actual support for it?

It's a pretty remarkable charade you've been carrying on here with Merion for so long and that post is just another really good example of that charade.

What you're doing is nothing like what others are who are criticiquing your essay and what it says. It is you who are just pulling stuff out of the air and trying to make it appear like fact. All any of us who critique your posts and essay are doing is saying you just can't get away with that as you have been trying to do.

Pretty basic stuff here really. Things like your constant railing against others who critique what you say about Merion and your constant call for "civil discourse" is nothing more than a guise and please don't think any of us have not understood and noticed that.

[DMoriarty]

Unless I am greatly mistaken, all the prolific golf writers of the era attributed the work of Merion to Wilson and his Committee. And no one in that time was rude in omitting MacDonalds advisory role in the process. His son-in-law's account of the work is contrary to the other accounts, I will grant you that, but it is the minority report, and it was stated at a time of grief and filial affection. Other than that, your theory appears to be based on conjecture.  

I said this at the beginning and I will say it again: the responses that have been aimed at your theory are exactly the kind of response that we should expect when poor scholarism is aimed at one of our most treasured American golf legends.

Bradley,  

Thanks for the insult.  I wish you would have cut right to it, instead of setting out the same old same old above it.  As I explained to you long ago, I believe the word you are looking for is "scholarship."  "Poor scholarship."    "Scholarism" is a word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.  I could be wrong.

I believe you are profoundly mistaken when you claim that early accounts of those who would know differ from H.J. Whigham's account.  They don't as far as I know, but I am willing to learn.

I also believe you are PROFOUNDLY mistaken when you say that I should have expected what I would get when my "poor scholarism" resulted in my essay.    I expected that TEPaul and Wayne and their possee would be upset, but I hoped they would get over it and we could finally engage in a productive discussion.  But I didn't expect they would try to trash my essay and my reputation without even producing any VERIFIABLE support for their attacks.   Nor did I expect the absurd accusations, the rumor mongering, or the blatant and repugnant defamation that your friend TEPaul has leveled.    

No one should have to deal with this kind of garbage on this website, but with your low-life friend TEPaul around, that is the way it is.

I mean look at this poor excuse for a man.   The piece of shit actually falsely accused me of being involved in a capital crime and being under threat of disbarment.   I don't give a crap whether he was drunk out of his mind, mentally ill, or simply wallowing in disgust at his own pathetic existence, he went way too far and it is by no means the first time.  

His justification for such boorish and reprehensible behavior?  

"Well, you know rumors are just rumors----Macdonald designed Merion or whatever without a jot of evidence to support it in a century, whatever; make out of them whatever you want to make out of them."

Yet now he has the nerve to write that none of this is personal against me?    He is a lowlife piece of shit like few I have ever known.

The problem Bradley, is that your friend Tom lives in a world without consequences.  Like a spoiled child, he thinks he can do and say whatever he wants and everyone should just laugh it off when he sobers up.  He doesn't think he needs to play by the same rules as everyone else; he just stomps his feet and yells and screams and thinks we should get his way, whether he deserves it or not.  Apparently that is the way things go with spoiled trust fund brats.  Well, Tom is a spoiled little trust fund brat who apparently never outgrew it.  

[Bradley Anderson]

David,

Tom Paul, friend? Hell, he and Wayne won't even come to Detroit to see me.

Let me tell you, if I met Tom Paul in a bar I would steal his wallet, his cigarettes, and the keys to his tractor.

[Niall C]

David,

I've been dipping in and out of the various Merion threads and while I wouldn't pretend to follow all the discussions, am I right in saying that you believe MacDonald and possibly Whigham were involved in the design of Merion ? That is to say, designing the routing and possibly individual hole designs based on models of other holes such as the Redan etc, rather than merely passing on generalknowledge about course design and his thoughts on specific model holes.

If my understanding of what you are saying is correct, what evidence that this was the case other than a mention in the minutes of Merion that the committee visited MacDonald to look at plans (with no mention specifically of what the plans were of).

I'm struggling to see how this could be the case given the ongoing activity of Wilson and his colleagues and the listing of M&W as giving advice rather than giving them billing as course architects/designers.

Niall

Apologies for the capitals above, slip of the fingers on the keyboard. That said I would still be interested to know what makes you think MacDonald specifically did the design rather than just providing general advice.

Niall

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
I'm proud to call the Philly gang, "friends".   They're adults and can take insults, but it really doesn't help the defense of your essay.

Honestly, I'd take a couple of weeks off and consider if your essay needs any adjustments.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My question is will the next generations memories of Merion be only the golfclubatlas threads?

And I wonder how the US Open program will treat this mess of a discsussion when it returns to Merion?  No mention? Small mention?  Basis of a feature story?

[Mike_Cirba]

Getting back to the Francis article, it's really a terrific historical document.  Thanks again to Tom MacWood and David Moriarty for finding it and reproducing it here.

I read it again this morning and it seems to me that it's Francis's attempt at telling us exactly what the Committee did, and how that differs from the course of today (the 1950 US Open course).   That would have made sense given the context of it's placement in a US Open program.

He also makes it clear that it was the responsibility of that committee to do all of the things associated with designing and building the course..   He continually uses possessive pronouns and after telling us how "we" thought that the road would make a fine hazard, and how that proved to be short-sighted, and also very humorously pointed out some of their other foibles and mistakes, such as the 8th green that was pitched much too steeply away from the approach, or the three-tiered 2nd green, which was described as "awfully interesting", tongue in cheek.

In case there is any doubt as to who was responsible for those golf holes he just described, he follows his description of all the holes and mistakes the committee made from an architectural standpoint with the statement "Another problem faced by the committee" and then goes into the difficulties at that time of trying to grow grass on clay-based inland soil.

He also makes clear that they sent Hugh Wilson overseas so that they could capitalize on the knowledge he gained there for their course...not that he was going to come back and be better able to implement and construct Macdonald's ideas.   Instead, they went "looking" for ideas, things to bring back...they didn't go there with preconceived notions.

It's a very modest and humble document, as well.   Clearly he's proud of his idea for the Francis Land Swap, but his overall tone is self-effacing. 

He's also proud to have been "added" to the committee of Wilson, Toulmin, Griscom, and Lloyd, speculating that it was likely his skills with surveying and maps that caused them to look to him.

It's very, very clear from that statement alone that he wasn't out there working on the land prior to the formation of the Wilson Committee.

Because I'd like to wrap this up, I'm eager to see what the surveyor's take is on the map comparison that Tom Paul proposed having done, but after re-reading the Francis article this morning, he could probably just as well save his money.

[TEPaul]

This is the timeline from Merion (MCC) that the entire record now available speaks about Macdonald/Whigam’s involvement with Merion East.


1. In apparently the second half of June 1910 Macdonald/Whigam make a site visit to Ardmore, Pa. to inspect land MCC has begun considering buying from real estate development company Haverford Development Company (HDC). Rodman E. Griscom, a prominent MCC member, very good golfer (former Philadelphia Amateur Champion) and member of NGLA was the one who asked Macdonald/Whigam to visit the site according to the MCC administrative record of the time. The following is the letter from Macdonald to Horatio Gates Lloyd summarizing his and Whigam’s June 1910 visit.



“New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.”



2. The following is Robert Lesley, the chairman of the “Search Committee, ” report to the board about Macdonald and Whigam.

“The committee through Mr. R. E. Griscom as fortunate enough to get Mr. C. B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam to come from New York and give us the benefit of their experience. These gentleman, besides being famous golfers have given the matter of golf course construction much study and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils etc. It was Mr. Macdonald assisted by Mr. Whigam who conceived and constructed the National course at Southampton Long Island.”

It continues:

“Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course, at $825.00 an acre, which we understand is about one-half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put into shape for a Golf Course.

Mr. Whigham estimated that the cost of putting the ground into condition for play would be $25,000.00, and the introduction of water $5000.00, making a very liberal estimate, as Mr. Heebner, in the construction of the Whitemarsh Club, about $12,000.00 the first year, and he believes that it will require an expenditure of $8000.00 over the next two years, making a total of $20,000.00 over a period of three years.  An outside estimate of the cost of  all the work required to put the property in condition for our needs, including the work to be done on the Club House, road building, etc., would be between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00, and we believe nearer the former.

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we believe it would be a wise purchase.

It may not be within the province of this Committee to propose any financial plan for carrying out this matter through, but we venture to suggest the following, namely:

That an effort be made to organize a Land Company to buy the property and lease it to the Club in its present shape on a practically perpetual lease.  The rental until January 1, 1912, to be at the rate of five per cent per annum on the cost price and taxes, with an option to the Club on or before that date to buy at cost; the rental and optional purchase price to increase by an amount equal to ten (10) percent on the original cost every five years after January 1, 1912.

This would leave open the question of how the Cricket Club would raise the $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 necessary to put the property into shape for use as a Golf Course.  This might be done by the organization of a new corporation, to be known as the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, to which the lease of the new property should be assigned, and all or a majority of the stock of which Association would be owned by the Merion Cricket Club;  the new Association to borrow the Improvement Fund, the payment of which, together with the payment of the rental and taxes for the grounds would have to be guaranteed by the Merion Cricket Club, and would constitute a valuable consideration for all the capital stock of the Association which the Club would receive; all golf dues go to the Association, and the Association to pledge to whoever advances the Improvement Fund a certain proportion of the dues of each member of the Golf Association as a Sinking Fund to gradually extinguish the loan.  Of course it would be necessary for the Golf Association to charge higher dues than the present charge to Golf members of the Cricket Club, and for every member of the Golf Association to be a member of the Cricket Club.

We particularly desire to impress upon the Board the fact that if the opportunity to acquire a permanent golf course is to be taken advantage of, prompt action is necessary.

Respectfully submitted for the Committee,
(signed)  Robert W. Lesley,
Chairman”

The board meeting minutes continued:

“Mr. Lloyd moved as follows:

“Resolved, that the board of government extend their sincere thanks to Messrs. Macdonald  and Whigam  for their kindness and courtesy in assisting the Special Committee on Golf Grounds with their inspection and opinions upon the new golf grounds. Carried
            On motion, the meeting then adjourned.”
                                                                         Edward Sayers
                                                                              Secretary”




Next post will include the next mention (by MCC) about Macdonald by Wilson on Feb. 1, 1911 in a letter to Russell Oakley of the U.S. Dept of Agriculture, The Wilson report to the Board meeting of April 19, 1911 and a final letter in June 1911 to Wilson by Macdonald mentioning lime and fertilizer application to greens.



 

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffrey Brauer:

I will guarantee you and/or bet you anything you'd like that this mess will have absolutely zero mention in any US Open program. Some of us may take the fact of that essay somewhat seriously but from all those I know from Merion, the club certainly doesn't and hasn't since they day they read it over a year ago. If one wants to get Merion's attention to do with their history one has to do a whole lot better of it than the unsustantiated and highly speculative ramblings of that essay and its preconceived point.

This thing has come full circle anyway and as you can see from David Moriarty's last few days of vituperative posts this was never really about Merion anyway; it was just another attempt to find something to try to prove us here wrong about anything. That's really all this mess was ever about and it's pretty clear now, don't you think young Esquire Jeffrey?

But for anyone interested in just the FACTS from MCC, and NOT speculation, see the Macdonald timeline post that began on #145 and will continue on the next one. That's what some have asked for.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

I think the rest of Francis' story is a great addition too and I'm particularly interested in how he mentioned he was "added to" the committee and why (appointed in the beginning of 1911) and the way he said they laid out AND built the golf course. (since Francis was a smart guy and must have been conversant with the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "lay out" (only something constructed or built), do you think he should have written that sentence "We built and then built the golf course" or perhaps "We laid out and the laid out the golf course"?).

I think those things are very revealing to our understanding of and discussion of the Francis story and I have no doubt the essayist will now need to claim on here that with those items from Francis he must have been mistaken or engaging in hyperbole AGAIN! 

And now, for me, my options seem to be:

1. Go out and play golf.
2. Mow another few fields because the grass has gotten mighty long.
3. Heed David Moriarty's advice (requirement if I want to converse with him? ) above and go seek treatment to determine why I act like a spoilt, rude, piece of shit trust fund brat who has never understood what consequences are.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

My good Mr. Paul,

Whilst my toungue was firmly in cheek, I actually wondered if, since some prominent golf writers read this site AND write for the open program or at least publications that review the Open course, that it might come up.  I am imagining Messrs Klein, Shackleford and Whitten, inclusive.

My other point is that the entire unpleasantness, whilst unable to detract from Merion's legacy in the long run, might somehow be included as part of it's lore from this point forward.  And, perchance they ever dedicate a room for dispute resolution between members, dare I suggest it be named either the TePaul or Moriarity room?

If I may be permitted to comment on your three options for the day, by all means, go out and play golf at your beloved Gulph Mills or at any course of your choosing.  Always a capital idea on a late spring morning.  However, if per chance you are paired with an analyst, there would never be any harm in soliciting free advice concerning one's own mental health!  On the other hand, I have always found grass mowing to be very theratputic and that might serve your puproses as well.  It sounds like you have three excellent options!

Yours truly for non combative mental health,

Jeffrey D. Brauer, esq.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey:

You are danged right mowing fields and such is highly therapeutic. I've been doing it all my life both on Long Island in the early years and now here in the later years. (The most important aspect these days is whether to listen to "Oldies But Goodies" or what my father used to call "Long Hair music."

I'm something like the old horse who has the 100 or so rocks and groundhog holes burned into his brain in some very interesting grids so I don't hit them and half kill myself or wreck my mowing equipment.

Naturally through all these years and years of mowing I've become very good at avoiding them (The CONSEQUENCES ) but that is not to say that I have not hit them all at some point in the past and half killed myself and done some damage to the machinery and won't again at some point in the future.

The mental therapy of all that is that I find it relaxing and refreshing and meditative as hell, otherwise I wouldn't have done it all these years, but the flipside is if and when I do hit one of those things and half kill myself and my machinery it does have a way of very poignantly reminding me what a rude, spoilt, piece of shit trust fund brat I really am, and even for criticizing, as I have, the revisionist and highly fallacious essay of the highly sensitive Merion essayist who spews constant vituperative venom on here because his feelings are hurt and he thinks his credibliity and reputation have been maligned because he put an essay on here and others critiqued and challenged it!

So my choices are to go see a professional therapist with questionable results or just get out on the land and mow and let it talk to me and tell me what I am and am not!

Or I could just go play golf with perhaps depressing results. When that happens I generally just come home anyway and mow a few fields!

Jeffrey, I should like to add a tidbit. On the big place in Long Island where I grew up and where I learned to mow grass on tractors around six or seven was this wonderful old Italian master gardener by the name of Herman Parentti. Almost every day he would say to me: "Little Tommy, yuzza  gooda boy---whena yuzza asleepa! "

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()